True, but if you look at the polls (and I’m sure all those folks in Washington do), Americans overwhelmingly blame the oil companies for increased prices, not Bush. Why not pick some fruit where it’s actually growing if you want to score political points?
I see that the Pubs are proposing $100 rebate for Americans to help deal with the immediate problem of rising prices. I haven’t seen the details, but I sure hope this is going to be aimed only at low income folks. Most Americans need to have the shit scared out of them with higher gas prices so they’ll stop buying ridiculously fuel inneficient cars. The market is screeming at us: CONSERVE! If we mitigate that message to consumers as a whole, we’re just making matters worse in the long run.
Yeah, I know. It’s an entirely Pittable way of conducting one’s political business, I’m just pointing out that her statement isn’t 100% wrong. She’s used a false premise to arrive at an accurate or somewhat-accurate conclusion, and like I used to do in math class, she happened to get the answer right. I felt the same way about Hillary Clinton’s “plantation” comment.
Easy. If she can manage to link the two she kills multiple birds with one cow pie. She gets the rage directed at Big Oil™, fans it, and then gets it associated with Bush et al…and more importantly, with the Republican party. Its a huge win/win for her if she can pull it off.
I’m sure you’ll be shocked but I agree completely. I don’t like it when the idiot Republicans fuck with the market any better than when the moronic Democrats do. I wish to hell that they would BOTH stop dicking with the market as if they knew what the hell they were doing…and for no other reason that a short term political gain.
I don’t know if you can really predict this. After all, if the US wasn’t committed in Iraq we’d probably be more heavily committed in Afghanistan…so the end result may be that Iran would calculate it could still push things. And all this assumes that they are making a calculation based on our over commitment in Iraq (I seriously doubt they feel threatened by the US, bogged down in Iraq as we currently are). Perhaps its other considerations that are driving the current push for nukes in Iran…
Also, IIRC the ‘moderates’ actually are MORE adament about nuclear power (wink wink, nudge nudge) than the, er, not so ‘moderates’. So, even assuming you are correct (assuming I am correct in my recollection…always a bad bet ), then we might still be in the same boat (or worse) than we currently are in.
Or maybe you are right. How much of the crisis in Iran is driving up speculation on the price of oil do you think? Roughly?
Trying to gather my thoughts here (no wisecracks please).
So Bush, Cheney, and (probably) the Republican controlled House and Senate are completely blameless for all this and probably for everything else too. Cite? So much for “accountability”.
Pelosi is EVIL for going for the soundbite, for making up a half truth, for assigning blame to someone else (as a Congress critter, she is parrtially to blame too ya know), and for engaging in attck politics and playing to her base.
It sounds a lot like It’s OK if a Republican does it (but not if a Democrat does). It also contradicts the old and boring idea that Democrats are wussies who are afraid of a fight, and so deserve to lose. Now one wants a fight and she’s a bad person for it. If the “rove machine” fights hard or fights dirty or plays games with the truth, it’s cool (something about not standing the heat in the kitchen). If soneone else uses the same tactics, it’s bad.
Well shit. At least, if pressed, I will admit to being partisan and biased. Anyeone else care to do the same? Other than that, this is a big YAWN.
I don’t think it’s unfair to blame Bush for instability in the Middle East, certainly one factor in the rise in oil. I don’t think it’s unfair to portray Bush as the stooge for the oil interest. It would be unfair to blame Bush for the rise in demand caused by the economic emergence of China on the industrial stage.
True to form, the Republicans are offering to gut the treasury to the tune of $100 per taxpayer if we’ll agree to drilling in the Arctic wildlife refuge. As surely as the sun comes up, the Republicans will find a way to turn every crisis into an excuse to raid the treasury and/or gut environmental protection.
I think the danger in calling Pelosi an ignorant slut is that it doesn’t leave enough room below her on the scale to rate Bush.
They’d gotten a lot of grief from Afghani drug smugglers after all.
But then we had to go and do a ‘preventative conquest’ of Iraq; tipped em off that we were seriously crazy, and they needed to look after their own defence.
Sounds like you just made that up. The only time I mentioned Republicans in this thread was to say I doubted they were doing the right thing either.
Man, you are the king of the strawman, aren’t you. Will you stop staking out positions that I’m not making? I specifically mentioned in the OP several fights I thought the Dems should make.
If anyone is taking a position that “it’s OK if it’s an X” in this thread it’s you, and X= Democrat.
You want to rip Pelosi a new one, go for it. I was replying to xtisme’s assertion that the Iraq invasion didn’t affect the stability, politics or policies of Iran. That’s not exactly a ‘no one could have imagined’ sort of consequence, unless you’re the president of the United States.
So, you think Kerry would have normalized relations with Iran? On what basis do you make that claim? Is he calling for normalized relations now? Did he call for them when Clinton was in power? It’s an interesting idea, but there isn’t any evidence to back it up.
Look, it doesn’'t matter who’s the president of Iran. That’s a figurehead position. The Council of Guardians, and the Grand Ayatollah have the power in Iran. Those are unelected positions. That little pipsqueak who’s making noise over there now isn’t going to change things one way or another.
Um…ok. I wasn’t disputing that. Is it your contention that Iran is getting froggy because they are deeply offended by our invasion of Iraq…or because our stupid adventure has put us in a position where we pretty much have very limited options wrt Iran?
Myself, I think its because they CAN get away with it, as the US is pretty much tied down. And had we gone into Afghanistan whole hog (which seems a reasonable course of action had we not had to run off to Iraq) then, well, Iran could have potentially still felt that the cat was away and so the little Mullah mice could play.
So, its your contention that Iran really did/does fear an invasion from the US, and that this is the primary reason they are frantically embarking on a multi-year (I’ve heard anywhere from 5-10 years from now) program to aquire nuclear weapons? :dubious:
You are, of course, welcome to your views, but doesn’t seem reasonable to me. If I think someone is about to pound on me the LAST thing I’m going to do is to kick them in the balls or taunt them from the bushes…not if its going to take me several years to forge a weapon knowing full well THEY already have one (several really). The whole ‘we are afraid for our security’, to my mind, is propaganda for home consumption. If they were REALLY afraid they would be building the thing in deep secrecy, and only unveil it when they have it made…presenting the US and the world with a fait accompli. They way they have gone about it, pretty much shouting from the rooftops and doing the two hands to the side of the head in moose antlers while sticking out their tongue at the world (not just the US) doesn’t seem the mark of someone terrified about the prospect of imminent invasion or attack.
To paraphrase from GW’s father, doesn’t seem prudent to me.
Well I think Iran has taken away from the Iraq invasion the message that the US would like to engage in some regime change in Iran, but that it is militarily incapable of doing so. That, I feel, is the worst of both worlds. I have also read that the entire Iranians across the political spectrum favor the nuclear program; it’s a “National Greatness” issue.
I’m not too sure what any of this has to do with the price of oil, and a gallon of gas, though. Gas is $3 a gallon. Don’t get used to it, it will go higher, and stay there. The rate at which China and India are putting cars on the road is the cause. Nancy Pelosi should really shut the fuck up. We have a chance to kick the living shit out of Bush without lying to do it, which will not only bring sense to the federal government, but will discredit the practice of lying to take control of the federal government.
Refresh my memory for a moment. Wasn’t it almost immediately after this speech, that top White House functionaries announced something to the effect of “he really didn’t mean it that way” ???
Afterwards, Harry Reid (and CNN) said this: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/31/sotu.energy/index.html
It wasn’t too long ago, Iran actually invited American engineers and scientists to help them build their reactors (they claim for peaceful purposes, energy). So why would they invite the US in back then, if they were intending to nuke us til we glow??? I think once again, the US blew it when a diplomatic solution was handed to us on a silver platter. It wasn’t that long ago either, that Iran issued official statements reiterating the original decision by then ruler Ayatollah Khomeini, condemning nucelar weapons on both ethical and religious grounds. Nukes or not, war with Iran now would be a total disaster. They are larger and stronger than Iran. The few countries that don’t already despise us would drop us like a bad habit.
Gas WILL go higher. So will heating oil. That will drive everything else up in a domino fashion.
You know, for a board that purports to fight ignorance, this is pathetic.
Can’t you all see that Bush is actually the Saudi King? And Cheney is the heir-apparent? And Halliburton is nothing more than a front for a massive parking garage for Halliburton employees in Iran?!?
Jesus, you people disappoint me.
That’s why all this money is going to those countries. The countries charging these prices are getting the money. ergo, Bush is the leader of Saudi Arabia. The American oil companies are getting crude at approximately $1.70/gallon before they even see it. Then the refining costs are factored in. And the pay to the people refining it. And the people that deliver it. And the people that sell the end product. And the people that maintain all the holding facilities. And the taxes.
I just don’t understand why gas isn’t under $2/gallon. And if Bush/Cheney were in total control, I’m disappointed in the potential of villianry to only post profits that high.
I would think the increased consumption in India and China would offer unlimited revenues. Wait till W figures that angle out! HYe’s gonna be rich!
Wait, he isn’t in a profit-sharing deal with OPEC? He isn’t in charge of how much a barrel of oil goes for based on world-wide demand?
Well in that case, he should try to help America out by looking for our own oil.
Oh, wait. :rolleyes:
If there is one thing I have learned from watching Karl Rove, it’s that the red states willl believe the big lie sooner than the small one. I find it hilarious that so many right wingers decry Pelosi’s tactics. The only reason you find this objectionable is not because it is not true, but that it just might work.
I don’t like it when the idiot Republicans fuck with the market any better than when the moronic Democrats do. I wish to hell that they would BOTH stop dicking with the market as if they knew what the hell they were doing…and for no other reason that a short term political gain.
), then we might still be in the same boat (or worse) than we currently are in.